National Dialogue Processes in the Digital Age: Artificial Intelligence, Epistemic Governance, and Political Inclusion

Akeem Aderayo Saraki

doi:10.37293/sapientiae121.04

Authors

Akeem Aderayo Saraki Kwara State University, Malete https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2184-6596

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37293/sapientiae121.04

Keywords:

Algorithmic governance, Artificial intelligence, Epistemic governance, National dialogue, Peacebuilding

Abstract

The concept of national dialogue has been one of the most important tools in transitional governance and post-conflict peacebuilding. As more civic participation infrastructures are coming under the sway of Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as natural language processing (NLP), machine learning classifiers, and generative AI systems, dialogue secretariats and international partners are implementing AI-aided ones to accommodate large-scale consultations, cluster grievances, translate submissions, and summarise proceedings. However, the literature on AI has mainly viewed AI as a technology that is neutral in its effects or a way to broadly rethink democracy, and not how AI is actually reorganizing the epistemic and institutional landscape of the national discourse itself. In this paper, it is stated that AI is an institutional actor in the process of national dialogue by redefining the construction of representation, the prioritisation of the agenda, and the way legitimacy is enacted. The study based on comparative qualitative research in Sudan (2019-2022), Ethiopia (2021-2023), and Kenya (2022-2024) which included 28 semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and aggregated data of consultation highlights three structural changes brought about by AI-assisted dialog systems, namely (1) datafied representation, (2) algorithmic agenda-setting, and (3) platform-mediated formation of legitimacy. The structural implications of the asymmetry in digital participation and the patterns of algorithmic clustering are stated through statistical robustness tests such as confidence interval modelling, proportion testing and regression analysis. The combination of the peacebuilding theory and the algorithmic governance with the Science and Technology Studies (STS) and the postcolonial digital critique contributes to the development of the framework of AI-mediated epistemic governance. It concludes with a solution of institutional protection based on weak political transitions.

References

Adler, E., & Bernstein, S. (2005). Knowledge in power: the epistemic construction of global governance. In Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (Eds.), Power in Global Governance. Cambridge University Press.

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952796

Berghof Foundation. (2019). National dialogue handbook. https://berghof-foundation.org/library/national-dialogue-handbook

Binns, R., et. al. (2020). 'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions. CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper No.: 377, Pages 1 - 14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173951

Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., Von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., . . . Liang, P. (2021). On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258

Choi, W. C., Chang, C. I., Choi, I. C., & Lam, L. C. (2025). A Review of Large Language Models (LLMs) Development: A Cross-Country Comparison of the US, China, Europe, UK, India, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202504.2136.v1

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

Crawford, K., et. al. (2019). AI Now 2019 report. New York, NY: AI Now Institute

de Coning, C. (2018). Adaptive peacebuilding. International Affairs, 94(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix251

Diakopoulos, N. (2019). Automating the News: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Media. Harvard University Press

Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017). Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For. Duke Law & Technology Review 18-84, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol16/iss1/2/

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M. et al. (2018). AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds & Machines 28, 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

Gangadharan, S. P. (2020). Digital exclusion: a politics of refusal. In Landemore, H., Reich, R. & Bernholz, L. (Eds.), Digital Technology and Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press.

Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet. Yale University Press.

Gorwa, R., Binns, R., & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society , 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. MIT Press.

Haider, H. (2019). National dialogues: lessons learned and success factors. K4D Helpdesk Report. Institute of Development Studies. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/14379

Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2020). Digital citizenship in a datafied society. Polity Press.

Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.

Jasanoff, S. (2021). The ethics of invention: Technology and the human future. W. W. Norton.

Kitchin, R. (2021). Data lives: How data are made and shape our lives. Bristol University Press.

Mac Ginty, R. (2021). The liberal peace and post-war reconstruction. Polity Press.

Mancini, F and O’Reilly, M 2013 New Technology and the Prevention of Violence and Conflict. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, 2(3), 55, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.cp

Mandikwaza, E. (2024). A Conceptual Framework for National Dialogues: Applied Theories and Concepts. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 24(2), 7-28. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2309-737X2024000200002&lng=en&tlng=en.

Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3, 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.

Paffenholz, T. (2014). Civil society and peace negotiations. International Negotiation, 19, 69–91. http://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article-pdf/30/1/69/2379237/nejo12046.pdf?

Richmond, O. (2011). A post-liberal peace. Routledge.

Roberts, H., Babuta, A., Morley, J., Thomas, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2023). Artificial intelligence regulation in the United Kingdom: a path to good governance and global leadership? Internet Policy Review, 12(2), 1709. https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.2.1709

Schirch, L. (2024). Digital peacebuilding and PeaceTech. In Information technology for peace and security.

Sending, O. J. (2015). The politics of expertise: Competing knowledge claims in international governance. University of Michigan Press.

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.

United Nations. (2017). Guidance on national dialogues. https://peacemaker.un.org

van Dijck, J. (2014).Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776

Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: a critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158